John Bolton at CPAC: The Benefits of Nuking Chicago

[kpete]

Source: Mother Jones

John Bolton at CPAC: The Benefits of Nuking Chicago
— By Jonathan Stein | Thu February 26, 2009 9:27 AM PST
—Photo illustration by Steve Aquino.

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton believes the security of the United States is at dire risk under the Obama administration. And before a gathering of conservatives in Washington on Thursday morning, he suggested, as something of a joke, that President Barack Obama might learn a needed lesson if Chicago were destroyed by a nuclear bomb.

Appearing at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the nation's largest annual conference of conservative activists, Bolton, one of the hardest hardliners of the George W. Bush administration, spoke at length about Obama's naiveté and how various nations – Russia, North Korea, Iran – will be exploiting the new president. The most dramatic moment of his speech may have been when he cracked a joke about the nuking of Obama's hometown.

"The fact is on foreign policy I don't think President Obama thinks it's a priority," said Bolton. "He said during the campaign he thought Iran was a tiny threat. Tiny, tiny depending on how many nuclear weapons they are ultimately able to deliver on target. Its, uh, its tiny compared to the Soviet Union, but is the loss of one American city" – here Bolton shrugged his shoulders impishly – "pick one at random – Chicago – is that a tiny threat?"

Bolton wasn't the only one who thought this was funny. The room erupted in laughter and applause. Was this conservative catharsis, with rightwingers delightfully imagining the destruction of a city that represents Obama? Or perhaps they were venting vengeance with their laughter. (Bolton is no stranger to inflammatory remarks. He once infamously quipped, "There are 38 floors to the UN building in New York. If you lost 10 of them, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.")

Read more: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/02/john-bolton-cpac-benefits-nuking-chicago

[MidwestTransplant]

1. And did he suggest the President should be there at the time? Sounds like a terrorist threat.

[Demoiselle]

13. Send him to Guantanamo for interrogation...

Especially now that they're getting their last sadistic licks in (according to stories recently out there) before they're closed down permanently.

[peacetalksforall]

2. It's been assumed that someone selected to represent the country at the UN had

some diplomatic skills, but he was a UN representative of the Cheney administration - so there's no surprise about his bombing Chicago remark.

Nice people. With all due sarcasm.

[aquart]

3. The loss of American cities never bothered them before.

New Orleans, anyone?

[Sultana]

5. and parts of NYC

[aquart]

8. We NEVER lost New York.

New York has 8 million. Three thousand dead is not a killing blow. Battery Park people, others were dislodged by the toxic dust...but they were still alive. The rest of us mourned IN OUR HOMES. I doubt any of us are over it, BUT NEW YORK WAS NOT DESTROYED BY TERRORISTS.

Instead, we found out the limitations of terrorism. Because you don't stop living. No matter how many are dead, dying, wounded, there are still normal boring things to do. And that was the lesson Bin Ladin did not mean to teach: After a disaster, ANY disaster, anyone who is still living keeps living. We incorporated new behaviors: if your train is stopped by a suspicious package, you get off and flag a cab or take a bus. Or walk. You keep going to where you're going and you get there.

Unlike cities that have not experienced disaster, New Yorkers now know something about ourselves: we know what we'll do in a crunch. You know what we did? WE HELPED.

[Demoiselle]

14. Beautifully said, Aquart (eom)

[DinahMoeHum]

25. "in a crunch" . . .remember the blackout in the summer of 2003 ??

Considering what the NYC metro area went through on 9/11, after that, a power blackout was child's play.

:fistbump:

[aquart]

33. I've been thru several major blackouts including that one.

And I hated losing all the food in the refrigerator...but that was an inconvenience, not a disaster. Walked home, got free ice cream from Haagen Daaz which was giving it away, and had a slice of pizza for dinner from a gas-fired pizza place which didn't jack up its prices. The next morning, the Salvation Army served up hot coffee and something round with a hole, no memory whether it was bagels or donuts. After the first few minutes, once we knew it wasn't another attack, it was all easy. The thing was...those first few minutes with everyone looking at each other, wondering. The cell phones were out. But we found a working pay phone and got our news that way.

Mere inconvenience.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

29. Can you imagine if a real president said:

"We have lost 3000 souls. This is tragic, but in the greater scheme of things we will go on and we will prevail, because our values that we hold dear will sustain us."

Instead, we got fearfearfearfearfear.

[aquart]

31. I knew on the day that George's reaction was more of a threat

than the towers falling.

[MadMaddie]

32. Yes you did Aquart !!

That strength that New Yorkers display proved that America can take a blow and not have to cower like the Repugs did soon after.

[murielm99]

35. It showed. It still shows.

Every time I visit New York City, I have renewed respect for how the people responded and how, in my opinion, it changed them.

The * administration said that 9/11 changed everything. I don't think so. But it did pull the people of New York together in lasting ways. I think the way they responded after the plane landed in the Hudson is a good example of that, too. Ferries and boats were there in minutes to rescue people. They didn't have to do that.

I love Chicago best, but New York really did step up and day and they have ever since.

[aquart]

39. There was a tall ship at the tip of Manhattan on 9/11.

It had a load of high school students on board. They saw the towers hit. The captain didn't know what to do. He had children to protect, but he was afraid to sail away under a New York bridge in case the bridges were struck next. So the ship watched. They watched as every small boat in the water turned TOWARD Manhattan, not away from it. With no training, and no idea what would happen next, they sped toward the tip of Manhattan and began taking people off the island. That's why so many people took days to get home...they were in New Jersey with kind strangers, waiting for the bridges and trains to start working again.

[closeupready]

38. That just means conservatives will try to find ways to make the pain hurt more next time.

Undoubtedly. :mad:

[county worker]

4. I'd like to see a study of the attendees at this CPAC

Like how many are delusional schizophrenics etc. They don't seem to live in reality do they?

[RJ Connors]

12. I thought delusional schizophrenics was a requirement for admission. n/t

[TimesSquareCowboy]

6. I think that will happen next, brought to you by the same people who brought you 9/11

[snappyturtle]

17. Remember the Biden comment during the campaign that the 'terrorists'

would test the new administration and how whole heartedly the repukes chimed in as if that comment would see fruition? I got my tin foil hat on but if it does happen I would have to wonder as to the true perpetrators.

Welcome to DU!

[Mrs. Overall]

7. Terror scenarios make Republicans absolutely giddy!!

[Cha]

42. As long as their cowardly asses are

hidden away in a bunker:scared::scared:

[scytherius]

9. If we don't rid the Nation of the GOP, this Nation is done. n/t

nt

[Oldtimeralso]

10. CPAC Stands for What?

Complete Pathetic Asshole Conference

[mbperrin]

11. Arrest this man for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Yes. Really. I'm tired of the right wing death machine laughing all the way to the crematorium.

[Matariki]

15. Hope this isn't like PNAC saying America needed 'A New Pearl Harbor'

It really sounds like a threat coming from that creep.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

16. I live in Chicago

I think it might be better if Bolton and his sheep followers were in a city all together and experienced something like that.

[nichomachus]

18. Scum-sucking pig! n/t

[benld74]

19. Exploiting the new president? then what the hell does he think,,,

happened during the last 8 years? Bush was so goddam stupid you could tell him to his face AND he still wouldn't get the point.
His 1st year in office a US plane was taken down near China, and to my recollection it was FULL of spy equipment, the crew NEVER got a chance to get rid of ANYTHING. ALL the posturing, puffing out of chest, threats etc, from Bush DID NOTHING.
The Cinese took that plane apart piece by piece getting everythin they wanted. Now THATS EXPLOITATION.

[CreekDog]

20. Obama did more to prevent the nuking of Chicago than Bush

Bolton neglected to mention that Obama and Richard Lugar teamed up to secure loose nukes.

Obama was ahead of Bush and his administration on this.

[No Elephants]

21. Why do Cons hate America?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

43. Because they're not running it anymore

They only love America when they're calling the shots. Otherwise, they hate this country and all it stands for.

Sean Hannity's website has a poll asking why kind of violent overthrow of the government would be best.

Bolton is fantasizing about the murder millions of innocent civilians.

There people are sick fucks who should never, EVER again be allowed near the reigns of power.

[ConcernedCanuk]

22. Ummm - I didn't read the whole article OR the thread - joking about NUKES is NOT funny

.
.
.

Bolton should have his mouth wired shut and be fed through a tube until he agrees to never speak in public

of course

That could also apply to Dim-son

[muntrv]

23. If lightning struck the CPAC circle jerk, nothing of value would be lost.

[struggle4progress]

24. Fifty-nine Former Ambassadors sign letter opposing Bolton's nomination (2005)

March 29, 2005

The Honorable Richard G. Lugar
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
450 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-6225

Dear Senator Lugar ...

John Bolton has an exceptional record of opposition to efforts to enhance U.S. security through arms control. He led a campaign against ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Today, the administration is pressing for development of new types of nuclear weapons. John Bolton blocked more extensive international agreement to limit sales of small arms, the main killer in internal wars. He led the fight to continue U.S. refusal to participate in the Ottawa Landmine Treaty. Today, the U.S. has joined Russia and China in insisting on the right to continue to deploy anti-personnel landmines. John Bolton crafted the U.S. withdrawal from the joint efforts of 40 countries to formulate a verification system for the Biological Weapons Convention and blocked continuation of these efforts in a period of increasing concern over potential terrorist use of these weapons and of terrorist access to the stocks of countries covertly producing these weapons. John Bolton’s unsubstantiated claims that Cuba and Syria are working on biological weapons further discredited the effect of U.S. warnings and U.S. intelligence on weapons of mass destruction.

John Bolton led the successful campaign for U.S. withdrawal from the treaty limiting missile defenses (ABM Treaty). The effects of this action included elimination of the sole treaty barrier to the weaponization of space. In the face of decades of votes in the UN General Assembly calling for negotiation of a treaty to block deployment of weapons in space, he has blocked negotiation in the Geneva Conference on Disarmament of a treaty on this subject. The administration has repeatedly proposed programs calling for weapon deployment in space.

As chief negotiator of the 2002 Moscow Treaty on withdrawing U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons from field deployment, John Bolton structured a treaty without its own verification regime, without required progress reports from both sides, without the requirement to destroy warheads withdrawn from deployment, and without provision for negotiating continued reductions. Under his guidance, the State Department repudiated important consensus agreements reached in the year 2000 Review Conference of the Non-proliferation Treaty and has even blocked the formulation of an agenda for the next review conference to be held in May 2005.

Under John Bolton as Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, the State Department has continued to fail to resolve the impasse with Russia about the legal liability of U.S. personnel working with Russia on the security of the huge arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of the former Soviet Union and has failed to accelerate measures aimed at the safety and security of this huge arsenal from theft, illegal sale and terrorist access ...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fifty-nine_Former_Ambassadors_sign_letter_opposing_Bolton's_nomination

[struggle4progress]

26. Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy letter (2005)

September 26, 2005

The Honorable Henry J. Hyde, Chairman
The Honorable Tom Lantos, Ranking Minority Member
Members of the Committee
House International Relations Committee
Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2170
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Hearing on UN Rhetoric or Reform, September 28

Dear Mr. Hyde, Mr. Lantos, and Members of the Committee,

Regarding the upcoming hearing on the UN Summit, I write to urge you to inquire into how it was that the section on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament was dropped from the outcome document. The Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP) has nearly 25 years experience in analyzing international law matters related to disarmament and security. Based two blocks from the United Nations in New York City, LCNP closely follows UN deliberations, most recently the negotiations on the outcome document. Our considered view, developed below, is that it was the intervention by Ambassador John Bolton, by letter to other UN ambassadors dated September 1, 2005, that led to the omission of the disarmament/non-proliferation section. The result was that the outcome document fails to address such crucial and time-urgent matters as establishing the additional protocol to IAEA safeguards agreement as the standard for compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and commencing negotiations on banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons.

This setback comes in the wake of the failure of the May 2005 Review Conference for the NPT to yield an agreement on next steps for non-proliferation and disarmament. The Summit was an opportunity to remedy that failure and to prevent the slow-motion disintegration of the non-proliferation regime. That is what heads of state can do; agree on action when less-empowered elements of their government have been unable to do so ...

http://lcnp.org/disarmament/hydeunreform.htm

[struggle4progress]

27. UN summit bullied by Bolton (2005)

Catholic New Times , Oct 9, 2005 by Douglas Roche
Email Print

When world leaders met at the United Nations in New York in 2000 to issue a Millennium Declaration, they resolved "to strive for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons" ...

Bolton immediately submitted hundreds of amendments to the draft. Many of those changes struck at the heart of the document, including his deletion of the word "disarmament" and insistence on language that dealt exclusively with the dangers posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons. References to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty were also deleted.

This aggressive action ripped the cover for consensus from the draft, and other countries started chipping away at previously agreed language. Pakistan, for instance, said that if the U.S. didn't want to talk about disarmament, it didn't want to talk about non-proliferation.

In the end, the document was shorn of any reference to disarmament or non-proliferation ... http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_15_29/ai_n15688398

[GinaMaria]

28. I have no words.....

[struggle4progress]

30. John Bolton vote delay (Ivins - 2005)

April 21, 2005
AUSTIN, Texas ... Bolton also pushed to cut funding for the Nunn-Lugar program to halt the nuclear proliferation of materials and failed to conclude a Plutonium Disposition Agreement with Russia to eliminate 70 tons of weapons-grade plutonium. Russia has more dangerous unsecured nuclear material than any other country ... http://freepress.org/columns/display/1/2005/1113

[Laelth]

34. What an ass!

I am deeply ashamed that he represented me in the United Nations. He does not now, nor has he ever, spoken for me.

:mad:

-Laelth

[sarcasmo]

36. Shouldn't the FBI investigate, is this not a Terror Threat?

[MilesColtrane]

37. This from the fear mongering shitbag that used to keep a hand grenade on his desk.

[The abyss]

40. Nope not Chicago…

If these nutcakes are priming the pump, so to speak, for another “false flag” event it won’t be for Chicago. Too much active financial and future trading going on there. They will pick some place like Des Moines, leeward of Offutt, on a primary arterial, but routable for east west cargo haulers. Nail the heartland, you know god, mom and apple pie.

Small device, low yield, good radial destruction for a few of the older decaying rundown blocks.

Nice heart stopper.

If I had to place a bet that is where my money would go.

Not Chicago.

[Cha]

41. Fucking john scare tactics bolten..

there's many reasons bush was such a failure and bolten's up there at top.